What to Do When BMC Refuses an Occupation Certificate

Q: Can BMC refuse an Occupation Certificate based on oral instructions alone?

No. Following the Bombay High Court's ruling in Arkade Developers, statutory authorities must act strictly in accordance with law when deciding OC applications, and undocumented oral instructions from outside the statutory decision-making chain cannot lawfully justify withholding a certificate.

Vikrant D. Shetty

Aug 14

10 min read

Updated: Aug 26

What to Do When BMC Refuses an Occupation Certificate

An Occupation Certificate under Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 must ordinarily be granted or refused in writing within 21 days of a complete application, yet the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's Building Proposal Department sometimes leaves a fully constructed building in limbo by neither approving nor formally refusing the certificate. Purchasers cannot register their flats with confidence and developers cannot close out obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 while an application remains pending without written reasons. This article examines why refusal or silent delay occurs even after construction is complete and what remedies exist against the Building Proposal Department.

The Statutory Framework: Section 353A of the MMC Act

Occupation of a new building in Mumbai is governed by Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), which deals with completion certificates and permission to occupy or use a building. Once construction is complete, the owner or developer submits a completion certificate along with the required plans and certifications. The Commissioner, acting through the Building Proposal Department, is required to either grant the Occupation Certificate (OC) or communicate a refusal in writing, ordinarily within 21 days of receipt of a complete application. Where no written decision is communicated within that period, the regulations treat the work as deemed approved for occupation, provided the construction actually conforms to the sanctioned plans.

The Difference Between Refusal, Silence, and a Conditional or Partial OC

In practice, BMC's response to a completed building falls into one of several categories: an outright written refusal citing specific deviations, prolonged silence that never quite ripens into either approval or a formal refusal, or a partial or conditional OC covering only part of a building (commonly a few floors) while the remainder stays pending. Each of these calls for a different legal response, and treating silence as equivalent to a formal refusal, or assuming a partial OC automatically extends to the rest of the building, are common and costly misreadings of where a project actually stands.

Why Does BMC Refuse or Delay an Occupation Certificate After Construction Is Complete?

Deviations From Sanctioned Plans, Real and Alleged

The most common ground BMC cites is deviation from the sanctioned building plan, whether an extra floor, a change in unit layout, or encroachment on a setback or open space. Genuine deviations do justify withholding an OC until regularised or compounded, where compounding is legally available. But the Building Proposal Department has also, in a number of instances, cited alleged deviations that turn out on inspection to be within permissible tolerance, or that were never actually built, leaving the applicant to disprove a negative before the certificate is released.

Outstanding NOCs From Allied Departments

An OC application typically bundles together no-objection certificates from the fire department, the tree authority, the sewerage department, and, where relevant, environmental or coastal regulation zone clearances. A pending NOC from any single allied department is routinely treated by the Building Proposal Department as sufficient reason to withhold the entire OC, even where the deficiency has nothing to do with life safety or structural compliance and could reasonably be addressed through a conditional or phased certificate.

Administrative Instructions That Have No Basis in the Sanctioned Plan or Regulations

A more troubling pattern involves OC applications kept pending not because of any deficiency in the building itself, but because of internal administrative instructions, sometimes oral, from officers or departments outside the statutory chain of decision-making under Section 353A. Where such instructions have no textual basis in the MMC Act, the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (DCPR 2034), or a validly issued written circular, they do not provide lawful grounds to withhold a certificate the applicant is otherwise entitled to.

Arkade Developers and the Limits of Administrative Instruction

Arkade Developers Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai [Writ Petition (L) No. 21357 of 2026 (Bombay High Court)] addressed exactly this problem. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad expressed strong disapproval of MCGM's conduct in keeping an Occupation Certificate application pending on the basis of alleged oral instructions attributed to the Additional Chief Secretary, rather than any documented deficiency in the building itself.

The Court held that statutory authorities exercising powers under a specific provision such as Section 353A must act strictly in accordance with law, and that unwritten, undocumented executive instructions cannot be permitted to override or suspend a statutory duty to decide an application on its merits within the prescribed framework. The ruling reinforces a point that recurs across Mumbai's building-permission litigation more broadly: administrative convenience or an informal instruction from outside the decision-making hierarchy is not a substitute for a reasoned, written order grounded in the applicable regulations.

Remedies Against the Building Proposal Department

What Should Be Done Before Filing a Writ Petition Against BMC?

Before approaching court, a structured written representation addressed to the ward-level Building Proposal Department, followed by escalation to the Chief Engineer (Building Proposals) or the Municipal Commissioner's office if unanswered, creates a documented record of delay that strengthens any later writ petition. Every representation should specifically ask for written reasons if the application is being withheld, since the absence of a reasoned refusal is itself a strong ground for relief.

Writ Petition for Mandamus Where the Statutory Timeline Has Lapsed

Once the 21-day period under Section 353A has passed without a written decision, an applicant has a strong basis to seek a writ of mandamus from the Bombay High Court directing BMC to either process the OC or communicate specific, written reasons for refusal. Courts have shown limited patience for corporations that neither grant nor formally refuse a certificate, since indefinite silence defeats the very purpose of a statutory timeline and leaves the applicant with no order to actually challenge on merits.

Consequences for Purchasers and RERA Compliance While the OC Is Pending

For a developer, an unresolved OC delay does not stay confined to the municipal file; it typically cascades into possession delays, purchaser complaints, and interest liability under the RERA framework, closely tracking the same pattern of builder delays that give rise to complaints before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Flat purchasers handed possession without a valid OC also face practical consequences of their own, including difficulty obtaining water and electricity connections in some wards and complications in reselling the unit.

Procedural Traps Specific to Occupation Certificate Disputes

Phased and Part-Building OC Applications

Large redevelopment or multi-wing projects can apply for a part or phased OC covering completed wings while construction continues elsewhere on the plot. Building Proposal Department practice on phased OCs varies by ward, and an application that does not clearly delineate which specific floors or wings are covered often gets treated as a single indivisible request, meaning a deficiency in one unfinished wing can end up blocking occupation of wings that are actually ready.

The Gap Between a Deemed OC and a Physical Certificate Purchasers Can Rely On

Even where the 21-day period has lapsed and an OC is arguably deemed approved by operation of the regulations, banks, purchasers, and sub-registrars in practice still expect a physical, signed certificate before releasing a home loan or registering a sale deed. Relying purely on a deemed-approval argument, without also pursuing a written certificate through representation or writ proceedings, frequently leaves a technically compliant building unable to function commercially.

Can a Time-Barred Deviation Still Be Compounded Under Section 53 of the MRTP Act?

Where an alleged deviation is genuinely compoundable under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, delay in filing the compounding application, sometimes because the developer is contesting whether the deviation exists at all, can itself become a separate ground BMC cites for continued refusal. Pursuing compounding without prejudice to a parallel challenge on the underlying allegation is often the more pragmatic route than waiting for the dispute over the deviation to resolve first.

Occupation Certificate Timelines and Consequences

Stage	Governing Provision	Typical Consequence of Delay
Submission of completion certificate and OC application	Section 353A, MMC Act	Starts the statutory decision clock
BMC decision (grant, refuse, or seek clarification)	Section 353A(2), MMC Act	Must ordinarily be communicated within 21 days
No written decision within 21 days	Section 353A, MMC Act and applicable regulations	Work may be treated as deemed approved for occupation, subject to plan conformity
Purchaser possession and registration without OC	RERA, 2016 and Registration Act, 1908	Registration and financing difficulties; possible RERA interest liability for the developer
Compounding of a genuine deviation	Section 53, MRTP Act, 1966	OC withheld until compounding is completed or the deviation is regularised

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does BMC have to decide on an Occupation Certificate application?

Under Section 353A of the MMC Act, BMC is ordinarily required to communicate its decision, grant or written refusal, within 21 days of receiving a complete application along with the completion certificate. Failure to respond within this period can result in the work being treated as deemed approved, subject to the construction conforming to the sanctioned plans.

Can BMC refuse an Occupation Certificate based on oral instructions alone?

No. Following the Bombay High Court's ruling in Arkade Developers, statutory authorities must act strictly in accordance with law when deciding OC applications, and undocumented oral instructions from outside the statutory decision-making chain cannot lawfully justify withholding a certificate.

What can a developer do if BMC neither grants nor refuses the OC application?

After the statutory 21-day period lapses without a written decision, a developer can escalate through a written representation to the Chief Engineer (Building Proposals) or Municipal Commissioner, and, if that fails, approach the Bombay High Court for a writ of mandamus directing BMC to decide the application and communicate written reasons for any refusal.

Is a deemed Occupation Certificate enough to register a flat sale or get a home loan?

In practice, banks, purchasers, and sub-registrars usually still expect a physical, signed OC rather than relying solely on a deemed-approval argument. A developer relying on deemed approval should still pursue a written certificate through representation or litigation to avoid downstream registration and financing difficulties.

Can part of a building get an Occupation Certificate while another part is still under construction?

Yes, phased or part-building OCs are available for completed wings or floors, but the application must clearly delineate what is being sought. Applications that do not separate completed and incomplete portions are often treated as a single request, which can hold up occupation of finished areas.

What happens if BMC alleges a deviation from the sanctioned plan that the developer disputes?

The developer can pursue compounding under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966, where the deviation is genuinely compoundable, while separately contesting the allegation itself if it is factually incorrect. Pursuing both routes without prejudice to each other is generally more effective than waiting for one dispute to resolve before addressing the other.

What are the practical risks for purchasers if they take possession without a valid Occupation Certificate?

Purchasers occupying a building without a valid OC can face difficulty obtaining water and electricity connections in some municipal wards, complications during resale, and increased scrutiny during any future property tax assessment or transaction involving the unit.

Does the Occupation Certificate requirement apply to redevelopment projects, not just new construction?

Yes. Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 applies to reconstruction and structural alteration as well as new construction, so a redevelopment project is subject to the same 21-day statutory timeline for BMC's decision and the same remedies against the Building Proposal Department as any other project seeking an Occupation Certificate.

Can a flat purchaser file a complaint if a developer fails to obtain an Occupation Certificate?

A purchaser does not usually have direct standing to compel the Building Proposal Department to act, but a purchaser can file a complaint before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority against the developer for failing to hand over a valid Occupation Certificate, and RERA can direct compliance or award compensation for the resulting delay.

What is the difference between a Completion Certificate and an Occupation Certificate?

A Completion Certificate confirms that construction has finished in accordance with the sanctioned plans, while an Occupation Certificate, granted under Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, is BMC's formal permission to occupy or use the completed building. The completion certificate is submitted as part of the OC application, and occupation is lawful only once the Occupation Certificate itself is granted or deemed approved.

Can a housing society apply for an Occupation Certificate on behalf of unit owners after a developer exits the project?

Yes. Where a developer has exited or is unavailable, an application under Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 can be pursued by the owner or by a duly constituted co-operative housing society formed by the flat purchasers, provided the underlying construction is complete and the required certifications can be obtained. This route is commonly used where a developer has abandoned a project after substantial completion.

Does the Occupation Certificate need to be renewed, or does it remain valid indefinitely once granted?

An Occupation Certificate granted under Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 does not carry a renewal requirement or expiry date once issued for the building as constructed. It remains valid unless the building later undergoes unauthorised alteration or addition that takes it outside the sanctioned plan on which the certificate was granted.

Can BMC be approached to expedite an Occupation Certificate application through the Right to Information Act instead of a writ petition?

A Right to Information Act, 2005 application can be used to obtain the status and file notings on a pending Occupation Certificate application, which can support a subsequent representation or writ petition, but it does not itself compel BMC to grant or refuse the certificate. It is a fact-finding tool rather than a substitute for the escalation and mandamus routes available under Section 353A.

Does obtaining an Occupation Certificate depend on payment of outstanding property tax or other municipal dues?

BMC's Building Proposal Department can, and often does, treat outstanding property tax, water charges, or other municipal dues on the plot as a further condition before releasing the Occupation Certificate under Section 353A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, even though these dues are separate from construction compliance. Clearing such dues, or securing written confirmation that none are outstanding, is a practical step worth taking before the OC application is filed.